■ # 



\ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. \ 
# ^■- ^ " 



i UNITED STATES OF AMER'ICA.|| 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/replytoprofoabroOOstal 



/ / / 



REPLY 



PEOF. 0. A. BKOWNSON'S LECTURE 



NON-INTERVENTION 



BEFORE THE 



MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OF CINCINNATI. 



A LECTURE 



DELIVERED IN 



SMITH & NIXON'S HALL, CINCINNATI, FEBRUARY 20, 1852, 

B Y J. B. STALLO. 



/A3i 



CINCINNATI: 

PUBLISHED FOPw THE COMMITTEE, BY C. A. MORGANT & CO. 
1-852. 









CINCINNATI : 

Morgan (f- OvcTcnd, Printers. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



CINCINNATI, MARCH 4, 1S52. 

Deak Sir: — Your reply to Dr. 0. A. Broavnson's lecture on non-intervention 
■was received by the audience, at Smith & Nixon's Hall, with very great favor. 
After its delivery, a meeting was organized, which resolved to tender you a 
vote of thanks, and also unanimously resolved that a copy of the discourse 
should be requested for publication and general circulation. We have been 
appointed the committee under the last resolution, and we hope you will not 
refuse to furnish your manuscript accordingly. 

Allow us to congratulate you, sir, on the promptitude and ability with 
which you have discharged your duty, and to tender you the thanks of your 
numerous auditors. W. M. CORRY, ) 

B. STORER, } Committee. 
E. M. GREGORY,^ 

John B. Stallo, Esq. 



REPLY. 

CINCINNATI, MARCH 6, 1852. 

Gentlemen: — In compliance with your request I herewith transmit the man- 
uscript of my lecture in reply to Professor Brownson. Though fully sensible 
of its many defects, which may partly be accounted for by the very few hours 
left me for preparation, and perfectly aware that its only merit is derived from 
the justice of the cause which it became my duty to advocate, I do not feel at 
liberty to withhold it from publication, if it is thought that this can, in the 
least degree, serve the sacred interests of liberty and truth. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

J. B. STALLO. 
Messrs. W. M. Corrt, i 

Bellamy Storer,> Committee. 
E. M. Gregory, ) 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 



On Tuesday evening, February 17th, a lecture was delivered in this 
hall before the Mercantile Library Association, by Prof. Brownson, on 
the subject of non-intervention. On the ground of the well known 
opinions of the gentleman, of the sentiments contained in a recent lec- 
ture delivered by him in St. Louis, and of the position which he occu- 
pies at the goal to which his long erratic course of more than twenty 
years has brought him, no one, I presume, came to his lecture with 
the expectation of finding in him a champion of the Hungarian cause, 
or of European revolutions generally. The friends of the gentleman — 
those who profess the same creed with him in politics or religion — 
flocked around him for the purpose of having their own vague ideas 
■and sympathies more sharply defined by his noted ability to state 
his propositions prominently and distinctly, and of having founda- 
tions furnished for their theories from the full store of his reading 
and logic. Those, on the other hand, who like myself, did not share 
the Professor's opinions, came to hear what could be said in confuta- 
tion of their own views — views partly resting upon earnest reasoning 
and inquiry, and pai'tly, perhaps, derived from the prevailing current 
of popular belief; and many of these, I know, brought with them a 
candid readiness to be convinced of the falsity of their positions, 
and, however reluctantly, to abandon them, if Professor Brownson's 
arguments carried such a conviction. But all, whether friends or 
opponents, came to hear arguments, not denunciations ; facts, not 
gratuitous statements ; historical truth, not the mere garblings of a 
prejudiced partisan. And the whole auditory, being a republican 
one, withal, came prepared for any thing but an onslaught on the 
very pillars of republicanism itself, with which our own cherished 
institutions must, in the end, stand or fall. 

Whether or not the different sections of Professor Brownson's 
auditory were disappointed, it is not my province to determine. I, 
for one, come to enter my protest both against his theories and his 
statements of fact. Let me say, however, that I do not come to 
arouse public indignation, or to create popular excitement. I do not 
mean to dispute the merit which Professor Brownson claims for the 



F 



O STALLO S LECTURE. 

man who lias the courage to stand forth, singly and alone, if need 
be, against the prejudices of the multitude, and to maintain his bal- 
ance on the ground of his own reasoning and investigation. But 
you will concede that the man who thus opposes himself to millions, 
who ventures to pronounce the dissenting opinion of one mind at the 
great tribunal where nations and mankind must be judged at last — 
the tribunal of public opinion, or, rather, of the public conscience, 
the conscience of nations and mankind — who dares to climb to the 
lofty summit of future centuries, and anticipate the verdict which 
time will pass on history and its events — that such a man should see 
to it, that his facts and principles are genuine, that his premises are 
correct, and that his conclusions are legitimate. 

It is my task with you to ascertain if Professor Brownson, in his 
lecture, meets these requirements. 

The positions taken by Professor Brownson may be summed up as 
follows : 

I. The right of revolution; tluit is, the right to violently overthrow a legally exist- 
ing government, is a right which no nation ever did or can possess. 

II. The war in Hungary was such a revolution ; an attempt violently to over- 
throw a legally existing government. Our American war of Independence was no 
revolution: by the Charters creating the United Colonies, there was an express or 
implied contract between the Crown of Great Britain and the Colonies, which was 
broken on the part of Great Britain, and thereby the Colonies became released. The 
United Colonies had been made independent by the act of their former Sovereigns; 
and that fact the Congress of 1776 only declared. Hungary, on the contrary, is 
not an independent nation. It is, and for more than three hundred years had been, 
an integral part, a subject province of Austria. Its union with Austria is not a 
personal one, nor is it such a one as arises from the fact that the Emperor of Aus- 
tria and the King of Hungary are the same person. 

From these two propositions — proposition first being the major, 
and proposition second the minor — Professor Brownson draws the 
conclusion that the war in Hungary, being a revolution or rebellion, 
was unjustifiable, and that its leaders, now our honored guests, are 
imported traitors. 

Professor Brownson argues further, and says : 

III. The cause of Hungary was bad; it was not a struggle for liberty, but 
against liberty — a war of oppression carried on by the Magyars against the other 
races. 

IV. Russia had the right to intervene, because she was called upon by the Sover- 
eign of Austria to suppress rebellion, and on the principle of self-preservation, 
because the revolutionary movements in Hungary endangered her own political exis- 
tence. 



STALLO S LECTURE. 7 

Several other propositions of Professor Brownson — e. c, that our 
intervention would be impolitic, unavoidable, etc. — I have not time 
here to discuss. 

I am at issue with Professor Brownson in all these several propo- 
sitions, and will now proceed to consider them seriatim. The first 
proposition of Professor Brownson, (and this, as all others, I 
quote literally from the report in the Commercial, which, although 
considerably softened in some of the expressions used by Professor 
Brownson, by being filtered, I suppose, through the mind of a 
republican reporter, may be taken as correct in the main), is as fol- 
lows: 

" The right of revolution; that is, the right of a violent overthrow of an 
existing form of government to introduce a different one, is a right which no 
nation ever did or can possess." In Professor Brownson's lecture on Socialism, 
delivered in St. Louis, (and reported in the St. Louis Times of February 5th, 
1852), he expresses himself as follows: "By revolution I understand the violen*; 
overthrow of a legitimate form of government for the purpose of introducing 
another form, which the revolutionists think will be more advantageous to 
themselves, or for the public good." Stated most favorably to Mr. Brownson, 
his proposition is this: " Ko nation has the right violently to overtlirow a 
legally existing, a legitimate government." 

There would be no controversy between Professor Brownson and 
myself as to the truth of the abstract princij^le, "that no nation has 
the right to overthrow a legally existing, a legitimate government," if 
the meaning attached by him and myself to the words "legal" and 
"legitimate" were the same. 

We must then examine what is Professor Brownson's test of legal- 
ity of the legitimacy of a government. 

Obviously there are but three kinds of sanction which can be 
imagined as constituting the legitimacy of a government, viz: 1st, 
the sanction, the consent of the governed; 2d, the sanction of the 
governing powers; in oilxav \i oxdiS, governmental authority sa,nction- 
ing, constituting itself, which amounts to mere existence de facto, and 
3d, the sanction of God — either directly or indirectly through the 
Church or the Pope — divine right. 

^ovr, first, Professor Brownson's criterion of legitimacy cannot be 
the consent of the governed, of the nation ; for in that view a revolu- 
tion, in the sense of Professor Brownson, a violent overthrow of the 
government, would be an absurdity. Such a revolution would sup- 
pose a nation consciously arrayed against itself, the will of the nation 
warrina: ao-ainst itself. 



8 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

If Professor Brownson contends, however, that a government in 
1848 is legitimate in consequence of a sanction given by a former 
generation, c. c, in 1687, then I answer that a former generation 
has no right to give the consent of the succeeding generation. If 
the year 1687 had the right to speak for the year 1848, and say what 
ought to be its legitimate government, the year 1848, e converso, has 
the right to speak for 1687, and to say what ought to have been the 
legitimate government then. Moreover, I propose to show, hereafter, 
that in the case in hand, the Austrian government, such as it claimed 
to exist in 1848, was not sanctioned by the Hungarians in 1687, or 
at any other time. 

Nor, secondly, can Professor Brownson mean to claim divine right — 
the sanction of God, or of the Church and its alleged head — as the 
I basis of legitimacy ; for the establishment of the House of Hapsburg 
{ on the Hungarian throne was due to conquest, not to ecclesiastical 
I investiture. Afterward, up to the time of Joseph I — who ascended 
I the throne of Hungary in 1705, and was the first hereditary king of 
I Hungary — the Hungarian crown was conferred upon the several 
I kings by election of the Hungarian Diet. In general. Professor 
Brownson Avill be able to find very few sovereigns in Europe or 
; elsewhere, on whom the Church or Pope conferred sovereign author- 
ity ; but I can find him several instances where the authorities of the 
! Church sided with the people against the established government. 
j During the first part of the reign of Andrew 11, of Hungary, who 
j mounted the throne in 1207, the then reigning Pope threatened the 
I king with an interdict, for doing the very thing which the late Haps- 
I burg Princes — and among them Ferdinand V and Francis I — have 
j attempted to do, viz : interfering with the municipal affairs of Hun- 
j g'^ry; and the "Bulla Aurea" then issued by the Pope expressly 
j recognized the right of resistance, in other words, the right of revo- 
j hition in the 2^eopl€. And, I apprehend. Professor Brownson would 
! be doing his Church very little service by saddling upon her the 
I responsibility for the many iniquities which have been perpetrated by 
! the Austrian kings and emperors in the name of Professor Brownson's 
j ^'legitimacy." 

i If, then, neither the consent of the people nor the sanction of the 

I Church constitutes the legitimacy of a government with Professor 
I Brownson, what lemains? Obviously, nothing else than authority 
! existing by its oivn sanction — exisfmg de facto, which, in plain English, 
I is successful usurpation. The ruler possesses the power; therefore 



STALLO S LECTURE. 9 

he lias the right to it. Might creates right. Professor Brownson is 
driven to this. This is the only legitimacy which he can claim ; and, 
bearing this in mind, his first proposition now reads thus : "No nation 
has the right violently to overthrow an existing government, no matter 
how established," which is an utter absurdity. But suppose, for a 
moment, that the actual existence of a government could constitute 
legitimacy, what follows ? Certainly the most complete justification 
of the revolutionary government in Hungary. If the Hapsburg 
rulers had the right to subvert the Hungarian constitution, and on 
its ruins to establish an Austrian Empire, then, certainly, several 
millions of Hungaiians had the right to crush the Austrian dominion, 
and on its ruins to rear the temple of republican freedom. The only 
question would be, whether or not they were able to do it. 

But, says Professor Brownson, the government of a nation may be 
changed by legal methods, that is to say, according to the provisions 
of the existing constitution, as in our country. That would be very 
true ; but the constitution of the Austrian Empire, so far as there is 
any, contains no provisions for a change, except the will of the king. 
In order to change the constitution of Austria, for instance, during 
the reign of Ferdinand V, it would be necessary to change the 
physical constitution of the man, the king or emperor, which is a 
strange method indeed, Ferdinand V being a hopeless idiot. 

Again, Professor Brownson continues : "Law is, by its very nature, 
binding ; not only externally, but internally — not only on the indi- 
vidual, but on the whole people." Undoubtedly, properly under- 
stood, lazv, by its very nature, is binding. But laws which are 
binding, essentially or by their very nature, are binding because they 
are laws of nature or of God. In a certain sense, civil laws may be 
reduced to laws of nature. Man is, essentially, a social being; he 
necessarily depends, in his existence, upon the coexistence of his 
fellow-men ; and the laws of the coexistence of men — as interpreted 
by the intelligence of society, and enounced as its will — are binding 
from their very nature ; because, only by observing them man's 
coexistence with other men — and, therefore, his own existence — is 
possible. To set these laws at naught would be the suicide both 
of individuals and of society. These laws, which are essentially 
binding, enforce themselves just as effectually as the laws of nature, 
ordinarily so called ; and you can violate them with as little impunity. 
But to say that all law — which is so styled by any body, merely because 
it IS ni the form of an enactment — is binding, is doing such outrageous 



10 ' ■ STALLO'S LECTURE. 

violence to reason and common sense, that it exceeds my power of 
comprehension to think that any one could seriously entertain it. 

It may be said that I do not lay sufficient stress on Professor 
Brownson's word violent overthrow — that he admits the right of the 
whole nation, including the rulers, peaceably, by its will, to change 
the government. But the question Avhich Professor Brownson treats, 
is, whether nations, exclusive of the existing rulers, have the right to 
overthrow the government, or, stating it most strongly, whether even 
the ivhole governed, people have the right to overthrow the existing 
government, against the will of the existing rulers " legally" in power. 
Such an overthrow is always a violent one, "by its very nature;" 
and it makes no difference vfhether or not the word violent is used. 
By denying the right of violent overthrow. Professor Brownson denies 
the right of overthrow in toto. 

On the whole, if Professor Brownson has ohiter dicta in his lecture, 
such as the following: " when the king has proved himself a tyrant, 
he forfeits his right," etc. — which seem to acknowledge the right of 
the people, after all, to judge for themselves what tyranny is, and to 
abolish that tyranny — it is a contradiction which I leave to Professor 
Brownson himself to reconcile. I state his premises as he himself 
states them, and as he must abide by them, tvithotit qualification or 
exception, in order that they may lead to and support his conclusion. 

After having thus disposed of P]-ofessor Brownson's first principle, 
his major proposition, it is, indeed, almost superfluous to consider his 
other points. But I follow him to the second proposition, which 
is this : 

" The war in Hungary -was a revolution — an attempt to overtLroxr a legiti- 
mate government. Our American war of independence was no revolution; it 
is called a revolution only by misnomer. By the charters creating the United 
Colonies there was an express or implied contract between the Crown of Great 
Britain and the United Colonies. That contract, on the part of Great Britain, 
was broken ; and being so broken, it released the Colonies. The Colonies 
became, ipso facto, independent states; they were made so by the act of their former 
sovereign ; and they only declared that fact; and that was all the Congress o/1776 did. 

" Hungary, on the contrary, is not an independent nation. In the list of 
independent nations, no such nation has been known these three hundred 
years. Hungary constituted an integral part of Austria, ancZ is just as much 
bound to the Emperor as the kingdom of Bohemia, the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, 
or THE Archduchy of Austria. It is not fair to suppose the union between 
Hungary and Austria is only what writers on international law call a personal 
union, such as once existed between Hanover and England — such a union as 
would arise from the fact that the sovereign ia both countries was one and the 
same person."' 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 11 

In answer to this proposition, I remark, that I am not aware that 
the charters of all or any of the United Colonies contained an express 
guarantee against those usurpations of power of which the Declaration 
of Independence complains, and which, according to the doctrine of 
Professor Brownson, constituted a breach of contract on the part of 
Great Britain, and released the Colonies. There was tyranny, but 
no breach of contract. Certainly, our Declaration of Independence 
puts the justification of our secession from Great Britain mainly and 
prominently on the ground of the eternal rights of 7nan, and not on 
the ground of previously granted charters and privileges; and ifc 
sounds strange to an American ear to learn, from Professor Brown- 
son, that we now have the right to be free and govern ourselves, 
because we "were made independent states by the act of the former 
sovereigns of Great Britain." 

But waving this question — admitting that our war of independ- 
ence is to be justified on the ground of a violation of compact between 
Great Britain and the Colonies, and that the United Colonies became 
independent states, because they were made so by the act of their 
former sovereign — does the distinction made by Professor Brownson 
between the relation of the Colonies to Great Britain on the one 
hand, and of Hungary to Austria on the other, obtain? What are 
Professor Brownson's facts, and what are his arguments in support 
of them? 

Professor Brownson states that Hungary is an integral part of 
Austria, and has not been an independent natio7i for three hundred 
years. 

Let us first see what Professor Brownson wants to prove, in order 
to make out his case, and then by what means he does it — what is 
the nature of his testimony. He wants to prove that Hungary has 
no separate and independent existence as against Austria ; not that 
she has no separate existence as against foreign nations: for he 
wants to prove that there is no compact between Austria and Hun- 
gary, the breach of which by Austria could release Hungary, as the 
alleged breach of our compact with Great Britain released us. He 
w^ants to prove there can not be such a compact, because there is but 
one party, "Hungary being an integral part of Austria:' It requires 
two to make a contract. 

Now, how does Professor Brownson proceed to show that Hungary 
has no separate and independent existence as against Austria? I 
quote his own words : 



12 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

"Hungary is not a complete state — not a state known to any foreign power. 
Our government has relations "with Hungary only through Austria. There is 
no perfect ministry accredited to Hungary. 

" The Hungarian soldiery — i. e. the Hungarian contingent of the standing 
army of Austria, which represents the force of the empire for external defense — 
take the oath of fidelity to the Emperor of Austria." 

A mere glance at this "formidable array of facts" will show that 
they all go to establish, only, that Hungary Aas no sejMrate existence 
AS AGAINST FOREIGN POWERS; jiot that it has no separate and inde- 
pendent existence as against Austria, which is the only question at 
issue. These facts do not touch the question at all. With regard 
to the last part, it must be borne in mind that the soldiery spoken of 
is the standing array, unconstitutionally levied in Hungary for the 
first time by Charles III, who came to the throne in 1711, to which 
all further addition must be voted by the Hungarian Diet. Not the 
militia of Hungary, but the Hungarian regiments (sixty thousand) 
i j of the standing army of Austria took the oath to the Austrian Em- 
peror ; and this is no more an argument against the independence of 
Hungary from Austria than the Swiss regiments of the former King 
of France were an argument against the independence of Switzer- 
land from France. 

But let us examine the precise facts of the case. The direct con- 
nection of the House of Hapsburg with the Crown of Hungary 
began with the year 1526, when Ferdinand I waged war against 
John Zapolya, the crowned King of Hungary. In a manifesto, 
which Ferdinand then tendered to the Hungarian nobility, he de- 
clared "that he Avould preserve inviolate all the rights and liberties 
of Hungary." In 1538 the peace of Groswardein was concluded, 
in which Ferdinand was established as King of Western Hungary, 
John Zapolya being recognized as the lawful sovereign of Eastern 
Hungary and Transylvania. In 1551 Isabella, widow of John Zapo- 
lya, ceded the Crown of Eastern Hungary and Transylvania to Ferd- 
inand for an indemnity to her, and thus the House of Hapsburg- 
Lorrain came to the throne of Hungary. 

We have here a case, partly of conquest and partly of cession, by 
a person having no right to cede; a very curious starting-point for 
Professor Brownson's "legitimacy." 

But the Hungarian crown remained elective until the accession of 
Joseph I, who came to the throne in 1705; Leopold I having, in 
1687, after a series of the most bloody cruelties, by w^hich the Hun- 
garians were tamed down, obtained the consent of the Diet to a law. 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 13 

which settled the right of hereditary succession on the male line of 
the House of Hapsburg. Even Professor Brownson will now con- 
cede, I hope, that previous to that time the Hungarian nation, hav- 
ino- a rio-ht to break off all connection with the House of Hapsburg 
by simply electing a prince of some other house, was free and inde- 
pendent. This is about one hundred and fifty years, ago instead of 
the three hundred claimed by Professor Brownson. 

But more than that : The Austrian Empire exists only since the 
year of our Lord 18U6, when Francis I (formerly Francis II) abdi- 
cated as Emperor of Germany, and styled himself Emperor of Aus- 
tria. Now, Professor Brownson will hardly contend that Hungary 
ever was an integral part of the Empire of Germany, or of the 
Archduchy of Austria; so that if Professor Brownson is right in 
makino- Hungary an integral part of Austria, it can, in the nature 
of things, only be true for the last fifty years or less. That brings 
Professor Brownson down from three hundred to fifty years — rather 
a falling off — '^ Facilis descensus Averni!" 

But I contend that Hungary now is and always has been free 
and inde]}e7ident — far more independent of Austria than the United 
Colonies of Great Britain — and that the union between Hungary and 
Austria is precisely such as results from the fact, that the King of 
Hungary and the Emperor of Austria are one and the same person, 
SL personal union. 

To show this, I might advert to the well known fact, that the 
Hapsburg Kings of Hungary often bore different names in Hungary 
and their other dominions. Charles III of Hungary, e. c, was 
Charles VI of Austria. But the following facts, which will not be 
denied by Professor Brownson, or any other Austrian authority, are 
conclusive : 

No Emperor of Austria, though crowned Emperor, has any au- 
thority in Hungary until he has been crowned in Hungary, and 
taken the coronation oath, in which he swears "to preserve and 
maintain the Constitution of Hungary." 

In order that this subject may be fully understood, it may be as 
well to give a short exposition of the Hungarian Constitution, or 
rather of the organization of the Hungarian monarchy, such as it 
existed before the events of 1848. 

I have already said that since 1 705, or, to go back to the time of 
the Diet, when the act in reference to this subject was passed, since 
1687 the Crown of Hungary became hereditary with the House of 



14 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

Hapsburo-. The " Pragmatic Sanction," in 1723, extended the hered- 
itary right to the female line of the same house. Ever since that 
time, the reigning monarch of the Hapsburg dynasty has been the 
constitutional king, the executive officer of Hungary. His chief pre- 
rogatives were to approve the laws, or absolutely to veto them — to 
execute the laws — to appoint all executive officers — to superintend 
the mint — to appoint the judges of the Curia Regia, etc. But by 
himself he could pass no laws, he could levy no taxes, he had noth- 
ing to do with the municipal government of the State or of the indi- 
vidual counties. 

The general legislative powers of the State were intrusted to the 
Diet, which consisted of two houses — the table of Magnates, and 
the Chamber of Deputies. The members of the former were thirty- 
five Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, and one Greek Archbishop, 
fifty-two official Counts of Hungary, and fourteen of the highest 
officers of the State, together with all titled barons, counts, princes, 
etc., not holding office. The latter — the Chamber of Deputies — 
counted one hundred and four voting members — two representatives 
from each of the fifty-two counties — all elected. The President was 
appointed by the King. The Chamber of Deputies had one right in 
common with the King, that of initiating measures, of proposing 
laws to be passed by the Diet. 

The judiciary of the realm consisted of royal courts, of which, 
the judges held their offices by royal appointment, and of baronial 
courts, which were, of course, independent of the King. 

It will thus be seen that the Hapsburg monarch, whose regal 
power in the Archduchy, and in most other States, was almost un- 
limited, was confined within constitutional limits in Hungary, and 
this fact alone completely establishes the entire independence of 
Hungary from the other Austrian dominions. 

But to put the fact beyound all controversy, the Hapsburg mon- 
archs have always recognized the independence of Hungary. There 
are instances enough where the Hungarian Constitution has been 
infringed and sought to be destroyed — where the Austrian system of 
centralization has been attempted to be practiced on Hungary. 
There is no lack of usurpations, and the whole history of the Haps- 
burg rulers in Hungary is almost one continued series of usurpations ; 
but those usurpations have been invariably resisted, and the Haps- 
burg monarchs have repeatedly been brought expressly to assert the 
independence of Hungary. 



STALLO'S LECTURE. ^ 15 

Thus, Article X of the decree of Leopold 11, in 1790-91, says: 

" Ihingariam esse regnum liberum, et relate ad totam legalem regi- 
minis formam inde'pendens, id est, nulli alteri Regno aut populo ohnox- 
ium, sed proimam habens consistentiam et constitutionem, propriisqite 
legihus et consuetudinibus, non vero ad normam aliarum 2)rovinciarum 
7'ege7idu7n et gubernandimi." 

" That the Hungarian kingdom is, with respect to the whole legal 
form of the realm, independent; that is to say, subordinate to no 
other kingdom or people ; but has its own consistency and constitu- 
tion, and is to be governed according to its own laws and customs, 
and not after the manner of the other [Austrian] provinces." 

This recognition was repeated several times during the reign of 
Francis I, particularly in 1811 and 1825. 

The protest of the Hungarian Diet, December 2, 1848, contains 
the following passage : 

"Hungary and the districts and counties annexed to it are not, 
and never have been, parts of the Austrian dominions; but form an 
independent country, which possesses its own constitution, and can 
only be governed according to its own laws, framed with the consent 
of the people." 

And, in spite of all this, Professor Brownson gravely assures you, 
that, in the list of independent nations, no such nation as Hungary has 
been Tcnown these three hundred years; that Hungary is an integral 
part of Austria; that the union of Hungary with Austria is not the 
personal one arising from the fact that the King of Hungary a.nd the 
Emperor of Austria are the same person. 

I might go farther, perhaps, and contend that there is, at present, 
not even a personal union between Hungary and Austria, and that 
Francis Joseph is a mere intruder. By the act of 1687, and the 
"pragmatic sanction" in 1723, the Crown of Hungary became 
hereditary in the male and female line of the House of Hapsburg. 
After the death of Ferdinand, therefore, Francis Joseph might have 
been entitled to the Crown. But ''nemo est hceres viventis," "no 
man is the heir of the living;" and Francis Joseph owes his Crown 
to the abdication of Ferdinand, who is still living, and the I'enuncia- 
tion of the heir-apparent. Now it is certainly very questionable 
whether Ferdinand had the right, without the consent of the Hun- 
garian Diet, to abdicate and transfer the Crown, at his will, to an 
individual who may die before him, and thus never acquire any 
hereditary rioht. 



16 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

But, certainly, until Francis Joseph is crowned in Hungary, and 
has taken the coronation oath, he is a usurper; and there is no 
legal union whatever, personal or integral, between Hungary and 
Austria. 

It may be justly contended, therefore, that the Hungarians, in 
their late struggle, fought in the name of their constitutionally- 
crowned king, against a daring usurper; that they did not seek vio- 
lently to overthrow a legally existing government, but to maintain it; 
and that not the leaders of the Hungarian vrar were the traitors, but the 
monarchs of the Hapsburg line. And if the United Colonies, if our 
patriotic forefathers had the right to declare themselves independent 
on the ground of Professor Brownson's alleged contract contained in 
the colonial charters, which is said to have been broken on the part 
of Great Britain, then, a fortiori, Hungary, which had an indubitable 
contract with the House of Hapsburg — the constitution solemnly 
sanctioned by the coronation oath of seven, or, excluding Joseph II, 
six hereditary Hapsburg kings — which enjoyed an independence not 
granted by those monarchs, but existing ^nor and superior to them — 
Hungary, I say, had the right to declare itself free and independent, 
and to fall back upon its ancient, indisputable rights. 

I now come to Professor Brownson's tJdrd proposition, which is 
the following: 

" The cause of Hungary was bad; it was not a struggle for liberty, but 
against liberty — a war of oppression, carried on by the Magyars against the 
other races." 

These are Professor Brownson's words: 

" Hungary has twelve millions, or more, of inhabitants. Out of these, about 
four and a half millions are of the Magyar race, the others of the Sclavonic. 
The Magyars are an Asiatic tribe, of kindred origin with the Turks. They 
conquered that country, and made their establishment there. They have 
remained there; and, by their laws and institutions, hold the greater portion 
of the conquered race in subjection and vassalage. None but Magyars, like 
our national guest, could be freemen or noblemen, nor could they hold real 
estate ; they could not have the rights of freemen, nor the rights of citizens ; 
the whole political poioer being in the hands of this riding race; and while they 
held the whole political power, all the land, the whole territory of Hungary 
proper, they were released from all taxes, all burdens of supporting the state, 
except the Magyar arms. It is true, that after the union with Austria, she had 
exerted herself to obtain some rights for those vassals — Sclavonic serfs— that 
were held in subjection by the ruling caste ; true, that they had sought to lighten 
the burdens that the Magyars had imposed on the Sclavonians ; and true, that, 
in order to do so, Austria had sometimes exerted her full power ; aud I (Prof. 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 17 

Brownson) ■will not deny that she exerted an arbitrary power in enforcing 
on Hungary the principles which recognized those poor serfs as men, etc. These 
are all the acts of tijranny or oppression that I (Professor B.) ever knew to have 
been inflicted on the Magyars. The Magyars had no right to complain, unless 
they insisted on their own right — the historical right to oppress and trample 
their own fellow-beings in the dust. The Hungarian struggle was not, there- 
fore, a movement in favor of liberty at all, except the liberty of one race to 
rule another. That is all it was in its origin ; and if, toward the conclusion, 
other doctrines were proclaimed, and a liberation of the peasantry was prom- 
ised, it was not in the origin contemplated, but was the last desperate measure 
resorted to in order to sustain a drooping cause, which it was felt could not be 
sustained without it. There was no movement, therefore, on behalf of liberty, 
freedom, or the rights of man; but a movement on behalf of the power of four 
and a half millions of Hungarian subjects to hold in subjection over six millions 
of their fellow-countrymen, but a different race. In a contest of that sort there 
was nothing requiring the interference of a foreign nation — no principle of 
national independence violated ; and if there should be an intervention at all, 
it should be not in favor of the Magyar, but of the slaves of the Sclavonic 
race, who were really contending for liberty. They were really contend- 
ing for liberty, for their independence, for their equality with others ; and 
■we, as the friends of equality, if we are to feel any sympathy at all, it 
should be, not with the ruling Magyars^ but with the Sclavonic race that 
was oppressed." 

If but one half the charges here preferred by Professor Bro^wn- 
son against the Magyars, against the Hungarian patriots, and against 
tlie leaders of the Hungarian revolution, are founded in fact, then, 
indeed, the sympathies of a free and generous nation have never 
been enlisted in an unholier cause than that ■which at this moment 
moves the hearts of Americans, from Maine to Louisiana; then, 
indeed, Professor Bro'wnson discharges a sacred duty in denouncing 
our Hungarian guests as imported traitors, and Kossuth — 

" This outward sainted deputy, 



Whose settled visage and deliberate word 
Nips youth i' the head, and follies doth enmew. 
As falcon doth the fowl — is yet a devil 1 " 

LET FACTS SPEAk! 

Even before the year 1848, there was no distinction "whatever 
between the different races and religious denominations, as to the 
right of citizenship and the right to o'wn lands, with ttvo excep- 
tions, ■which, however, are not in favor of, or against, the Magyar. 
One exception is, that in Croatia a Protestant could not — and can 
not now, I think — hold real estate ; the other exception is, that in 

2 



18 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

Transylvania all the Szeklers are nobles or freemen, and three of the 
races in Transylvania — viz : Szeklers, Saxons, and Wallachians — 
have a separate political representation as races. 

The statement of Professor Brownson, that none but Magyars 
were freemen or noblemen — that they only could hold real estate — 
that the Magyars -wave the noblemen, and the Sclavonians the peas- 
ants or serfs of Hungarjr — is utterly erroneous. There were before 
1848, and are now, Magyar nobles and Magyar peasants, (perhaps 
about three hundred and fifty thotisand Magyar nobles, and more than 
five millions Magyar peasants); Sclavonian nobles and Sclavonian 
peasants ; Wallachian, Serb, Croation, etc., nobles ; and Wallachian, 
Serb, Croatian peasants. The Magyar nobles constitute little more 
than half the nobility of the Hungarian kingdom, the other nobles 
being Sclavonians, Wallacks, Germans, Slovacks, etc. There are 
many Magyar peasants belonging to Sclavonian, etc., nobles. The 
whole number of noblemen in Hungary is, probably, 600,000. There 
were, and are, whole districts in Hungary where the Magyars own 
no land, and where not one Magyar noble can be found. There is 
no difference between the Magyar and Sclavonian peasants or serfs, 
except this, that the Magyars, perhaps, are more industrious and intel- 
ligent. It is equally untrue, that the Sclavonians — by which (name) 
Professor Brownson designates all races not Magyar — had but "two 
or three delegates in the Hungarian Diet," as Professor Bi'ownson 
asserts. The counties of Trentschin Arva, Turocz, Liptau, Sarosch, 
and Sohl, for instance, are almost purely Sclavonian counties, each 
returning two Scla-vonian delegates, elected by Sclavonian nobles or 
freemen, to the Hungarian Diet. The county of Marmarosch is 
Wallachian, sending Wallachian deputies, elected by Wallachian 
nobles. The counties Weroeczi, Syrmia, and Poszega, are Croatian 
counties, sending Croats, elected by Croatian nobles, as delegates to 
the Hungarian Diet. The counties of Temoes, Tarontal, and Craszo, 
are Serb, Wallachian, and Armenian counties, sending Serb, Wal- 
lachian, and Armenian delegates, elected by Serb, Wallachian, and 
Armenian nobles. In the Diet of 1839, at least ten different races 
were represented. Beside, there are several other counties in which 
Magyars and other races reside promiscuously, and elect deputies of 
various races. 

More astounding than all this, however, is Professor Brownson's 
allegation, "that Austria has exerted herself to obtain some rights 
for those vassals— the Sclavonic serfs — that were held in subjection 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 19 

by the ruling caste ; that Austria sought to lighten the burdens that 
the Magyars had imposed on the Sclavonians ; that Austria had 
exerted an arbitrary power only in enforcing on Hungary the prin- 
ciples which recognized those poor serfs as men;" and that, "if the 
Hungarian patriots, toward the conclusion, proclaimed other doc- 
trines, and promised a liberation of the peasantry, it was not in the 
origin contemplated, and it was the last desperate measure resorted 
to in sustaining a cause which it was felt could not be sustained 
without it!" 

These are, indeed, revelations ! Austria — perfidious, reactionary 
Austria — in the van of a liberal movement for the emancipation of 
"serfs ! " 

There is no doubt, that, in former times, some of the Austrian 
"tartufies," whose maxim always was ^'divide et impera,^' seemingly 
sided with the peasantry, and held out to them golden prospects of 
"emancipation," in order to weaken the power and influence of the 
Hungarian nobles and magnates, who were disaffected to the House 
of Hapsburg, owing to the repeated attempts of these "tartuffes" 
to destroy the Hungarian nationality, and incorporate Hungary with 
the other dominions. 

When, however, the light of those ideas which are embodied in 
our own glorious institutions, the vital ideas of the nineteenth 
century, began to loom up even on the Austrian horizon, then 
the real Austrian policy did not fail to disclose itself; and if any 
measures of reform were proposed by the Hapsburg rulers, it was 
because the king disputed the right to initiate measures with the 
House of Deputies, and knew that these measures would be intro- 
duced at all events. It is the old plea, "I am very happy, sir, that 
you kicked me down stairs; I was just going that way myself." 
And when the Hungarian Diet set about the work of progress, 
reform, and "emancipation," in good earnest, it was the Austrian 
IMvty, represented by officials, etc., in the House of Magnates, and 
the Hapsburg Sovereign, armed with the weapon of "absolute veto," 
who held back and resisted. Ever since the year 1832, from the 
beginning of that memorable session of the Hungarian Diet, whose 
avowed purpose was the revision of the old constitution, there was 
an organized liberal and patriotic party of Hungarians, whose pro- 
gramme — afterward advocated by Kossuth, in his Pesthi Hirlap — 
embraced the following articles: 

"1. All the peasants of the Kingdom, of whatever religion or race, 



20 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

shall be at once freed from all urbarial dues and obligations to the 
landholders, the landlords to be indemnified by the State. 

"2. All the inhabitants of the country, whether noble or peasant, 
without distinction as to religion or race, shall be declared equal 
before the law. 

"3. Every inhabitant whose property amounts to about thirty 
pounds, or who has an income of about ten pounds, [property qual- 
ification not entirely unknown to us in the United States], shall have 
the rio'ht of suffraoe. 

O iD 

"4. Every inhabitant having this elective franchise, shall bear his 
equal proportion of the expenses of the government, by paying taxes 
according to the value of his income. 

"The Hungarian Diet, and not the Hungarian Chancery at Vienna, 
shall decide on the employment of the public revenue. 

"6. The revenue and other national affairs, shall be intrusted to 
a cabinet of Hungarian ministers, who shall be responsible to Hun- 
gary and not to Austria. 

"7. The right of the heirs of nobles to recover property once sold 
by their ancestors [aviticitas — the Hungarian law of entail] shall be 
abolished." 

In the Hungarian Diet of 1847-48, which closed its labors in 
April, 1848, these different measures were almost all enacted in the 
form of law. To quote Blackwood's Magazine, vol. Isv, p. 629, 
which will not be accused of undue partiality to the liberals : 

"By unanimous votes of both houses, the Diet not only estab- 
lished perfect equality of civil rights and public burdens among all 
classes, denominations, and races in Hungary and its provinces, and 
perfect toleration for every form of religious worship, but with a gen- 
erosity, perhaps, unparalleled in the history of nations, and which 
must extort the admiration even of those who viay question the zvisdom 
of the measure, the nobles of Hungary abolished their own right to 
exact either labor or produce in return for the lands held by urbarial 
tenure, and thus transferred to the peasants the absolute ownership, 
free and forever, of nearly half the cultivated land in the Kingdom, 
reserving to the original proprietors of the soil such compensation as 
the government might award from the public funds of Hungary. 
More than five hundred thousand peasant families were thus invested 
with the absolute ownership of from thirty to sixty acres of land 
each, or about twenty millions of acres amongst them. The elective 
franchise was extended to every man possessed of capital or property 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 21 

of the value of thirty pounds, or an annual income of ten pounds ; 
to every man who received a diploma from a university, and to every 
artisan who employed an apprentice. With the concurrences of both 
countries, Hungary and Transylvania were united, and their Diets, 
hitherto separate, were incorporated." 

To these reforms, enumerated by the writer in Blackwood's Maga- 
zine, might be added the abolition of the "ninth," the equalization 
of taxes, the emancipation of the Jews, etc. 

These enactments were raised to the authority of law by the royal 
signature of Ferdinand V, on the 11th day of April, A. D., 1848. 
These were the words of Ferdinand on the occasion: "Having 
graciously listened to, and graciously granted the prayers of, our 
beloved and faithful dignitaries of the Church and of the State, 
magnates and nobles of Hungary and its dependencies, we ordain 
that the before-mentioned laws be registered in these presents, word 
for word ; and as we consider these laws and their entire contents, 
both separately and collectively, fitting and suitable, we give them 
our consent and approbation. In exercise of our royal will, we have 
accepted, adopted, approved and sanctioned them, assuring, at the 
same time, our faithful states that we will respect the said laws and 
cause them to be respected by our faithful subjects." 

After Ferdinand had signed these words by his own hand, they 
were countersigned by Batthyany, the Hungarian Prime Minis- 
ter just aiypointed by Ferdinand himself, and thus the enactments 
above referred to became the law of the land. The old Austrian 
Ministry had nothing whatever to do with it, because, as I have 
shown, Hungary was independent. 

It will be recollected that all this took place before, and on the 
11th of April, 1848, long before any war or revolution broke out in 
Hungary; that all these liberal provisions relating to the "emanci- 
pation of serfs" had been advocated by Kossuth and the Hungarian 
patriot party many years before. It is also well known that the ex- 
istence of the Pesti Hirlap, edited by Kossuth, the organ of the 
principles of progress and emancipation, w^as not due to Austrian 
encouragement, and that if the Austrian censorship could have done 
its work effectually enough, all these ideas of emancipation would 
have been "nipped in the bud." 

The Blue Book of the British Parliament, entitled "Correspond- 
ence relative to the affairs of Hungary, 1847-1849, Harrison <fe Son, 
1850," (quoted in the New York Herald, October 28, 1851), con 



22 STALLO S LECTURE. 

tains a series of letters Avritten by the agent of the British Embassy 
at Vienna to the Ambassador. This agent, expressly sent to watch 
the course of events at Presburg, was a Mr. Blackwell ; the am- 
bassador, Lord Ponsonby. The correspondence of Lord Ponsonby 
was ridiculed at the time as showing that he depended for his knowl- 
edge of Hungarian affairs on Austrian authority ; and thus this tes- 
timony, which proves that the Hungarian revolution was, in its first 
germs, thoroughly liberal in its character, and a revolution as well 
against feudal and aristocratical institutions as against Austrian abso- 
lutism, is doubly valuable. The following are extracts from Mr. 
Blackwell's letters to Lord Ponsonby : 

"PuESBUEG, December 22, 1847. 
" In the last Diet the liberals had, on most questions, a majority in the lower 
house varying from ten to twenty-five. In tlie present Diet they have only a 
majority of two to four, (owing to the great power of the government to influ- 
ence the elections.) The government, as visual, is in the majority in the upper 
house." 

It was this upper house — the table of Magnates, and, therefore, 
the governmental 2^aTty, which, of latter years, invariably opposed all 
measures of reform and emancipation. In the language of Mr. 
Paget, "Hungary and Transylvania," vol. i, p. 103, (Philadelphia 
edition): * 

"Eleven times the Commons passed the bill, [giving to the peasant the unre- 
stricted privilege of buying and selling landed property and the enjoyment 
of equal rights before the law], eleven times the Magnates [the governmental 
party, as Blackwell's testimony, as well as that of Paget, proves] rejected it." 
Tliis refers to tlie session of the Diet from 1832-1836. 

Mr. Blackwell proceeds to give the programme of the liberals as 
follows : 

"The liberals, or the opposition, as they are now generally called, after one 
of their quarterly meetings at Pesth, in March, 1847, made known their views, 
in wliicli, after declaring their many grievances against Austria, they demand 
the following guaranties for the independence of Hungarry: 

"A responsible ministry; liberty of the press; union of Hungary and Tran- 
sylvania; publicity respecting every thing relating to public affairs, etc. Tiiey 
propose the following reforms: A system of general taxation of all classes, noble 
or non-noble, without distinction; the co-ordination of the free towns; equality 
before the law; a rej'orm of the urbarial law; the abolition of the primogeniture 
and aviticite laws." 

On the 19th of March, 1848, before the war had broken out, Mr. 
Blackwell writes to Lord Ponsonby as follows : 

" I write a few hasty lines to say that the revolution is complete. They no 
longer vote by counties in the Diet, but each delegate has a free vote; delegates 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 23 

of counties, free towns, free districts and chapters, 'witliont distinction. The 
corvee, (forced labor of the peasants), the tithe of one-tenth to the Church and 
of one-ninth to the manor, and all other urbarial services are abolished. A regu- 
lar system of taxation, without distinction as to class, is to be fortliwith estab- 
lished. Tlie aviticital laws and laws of primogeniture are to be abolished."* 

The first sixty folio pages of the Blue Book are replete with simi- 
lar correspondence, all referring to the 2^eriod antecedent to the actual 
revolution in Hunganj ! 

What becomes now of Professor Brownson's assertion, "That 
Austria exerted herself to obtain some right for Sclavonic serfs, and 
that if the Hungarian patriots, towards the conclusion, jyroclainied 
other doctrines, and 2^romised a liberation of the 2^ec(sa?itri/, it ivas 
7iot in the origin contemplated, and tvas the last desperate measure 
resorted to for sustaining a cause which it was felt could not be sus- 
tained without it!" So far from promising only at the conclusion, 
the peasantry had already been liberated in the beginning, and the 
members of the Diet, which opened its session in July, 1848, had 
already been elected under the new law ! 

There is no scarcity of facts which go to establish that the eman- 
cipation movement did not proceed from the Austrian Government. 
In 1835 the Hungarian* Diet passed a law by which the right was con- 
ferred upon the peasantry to purchase real estate or the freedom from 
urbarial dues, and thus acquire political existence. This laio was 
vetoed by Ferdinand V in November, 1835, and the speech of old 
Weszelenyi upon the occasion, is a masterly exposure of Austrian hy- 
pocrisy and deceit. 

To return to Professor Brownson and his "historical revelations," 
quoting his "■ipsa verba" again: " There has been, so far as I [Pro- 
fessor Brownson] could hear, not a single act of oppression toivard 

*In the "petition of the Clergy of the Catholic Church in Hungary to his Majesty Ferdinand V, 

King of Hungary," drawn up at the Synod held at Pesth in October, 1848, signed by the Primate, 
Archbishop of Gran, and by the Bishops of Erlau, Neutra, Rosnan, Sabaria, Neusobl, Grosswar 
dein, Zips, Csanad and by Titular Bishop Fogarassy, (which Professor Brownson, I hope, will i 

recognize as good authority), the following passages occur: i 

"Six months ago our Constitution of eight centuries was modified at the Diet of Presburg, ia 
accordance with the requirements of the age, and the wishes of the people, and its benefits were 
extended to all the cliildrcn of the land, without distinction of class, of language, or of creed." I 

Again: 

"We, (the Catholic Clergy of Hungary), are persuaded that this people, in arming itself to 
defend its liberty, has remained on strictly legal ground." 

Speaking of tlie Croatians, (who, according to Professor Brownson aie oppressed by the Mag 
yars), these Bishops say: I 

" In the south, a race (the Croats) although enjoying the same civil and political rights which 
are recognized in Hungary are excited and led astray by a faction, etc. 1 



24 



STALLO S LECTURE. 



Hungary, excepting this act on the part of the Austrian government, 
for the relief of the Hungarian peasantry ." Poor, innocent, calum- 
niated Austria! '^ There was no p)rinci2)le of national independence 
violated hy the Austria7is." 

I do not, of course, mean to enumerate all the acts of usurpation, 
cruelty and oppression committed by the House of Hapsburg during 
the three hundred years of its connection with the throne of Hun- 
gary. If I had room for it, and if it were in my power, the cata- 
logue would become longer than the list of wrongs placed on record 
in our Declaration of Independence. I will, therefore, select but a 
few ; and if Professor Brownson desires more, they can be furnished 
to him. 

We have seen that all the monarchs of the House of Hapsburg, 
before they had any authority as Kings of Hungary, swore fealty to 
the Hungarian Constitution in the coronation oath. Joseph II, 'as 
well as the present Emperor Francis Joseph, never took this oath; 
all the others swore it, and by that oath almost all the others are 
perjured. The Hungarian Constitution requires that the king should 
convoke the Hungarian Diet once every three years. This was 
observed by scarcely any one of all the Hapsburg monarchs. From 
Fi,udolph (1602) down to Francis I (II) every one of the kings con- 
vened the Diet only when he was compelled to do so, or when he 
wished to deal some death-blow against the Hungarian liberties to 
which the app>arent sanction of the Diet was requisite, in order to 
prevent the open resistance of the people. 1\\\i% Leojyold I, in 1683, 
attempted to abolish the whole Hungarian Constitution; nominated 
Caspar Ampringen civil and military governor of Hungary, instituted 
courts of martial law and inquisition, devastated the country, massa- 
cred the "heretics," and only when in 1686, by the vigorous resist- 
ance of the Hungarians, he had been compelled to abandon his 
schemes and (to cite but one instance) to abolish that frightful inquis- 
itorial establishment at Eperies under General Caraffa, which is 
known in history as the ^'laniena Hperjessiensis," he convoked a 
Diet, in 1687, in order to effect with a show of legality what he had 
not been able to carry by main force — to make the Hungarian Crown 
hereditary in his house, and to abolish the right of armed resistance 
claimed by virtue of the Bulla Aurea above alluded to. The estab- 
lishment of the Hungarian Chancery at the Court of Vienna, the 
introduction of the standing army system by Charles III (VI) in 
1711, the so called "provisional" appointments made to fill muni- 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 25 

cipal offices, which were, by the Constitution, elective, under Francis 
I, the estabhshment of the censorship, etc., all were violent infrac- 
tions of the Hungarian Constitution. 

To religious persecution I have already alluded. For a series of 
years two objects, beside the general one of centralization, were 
kept steadily in view by Austria — to Germanize Hungary, (Maria 
Theresa, Joseph II, and the subsequent monarchs), and to render it 
Catholic. The peace of JSTickolsburg (1622), the peace of Lipz 
(under Ferdinand III), the peace of Vienna (1606, under Rudolph), 
etc. — in all of which religious liberty is stipulated, and all of which 
were concluded to end "revolutions," in which the noble Hungarians 
sought to maintain their dearest right, the freedom of conscience — 
sufficiently attest the frequency of the inroads made by the Austrian 
Government on the religious freedom of Hungary. A pithy edict of 
Louis II, in 1622, who succeeded Rudolph after his abdication in 
Hungary, against the Lutherans, was in these words: ^' Luther ani 
comburantur!'' — "Let the Lutherans be burned!''' 

I turn from this disgusting subject to one, perhaps, less revolting, 
but not less teeming with injustice. For many years — I might say 
centuries — the settled policy of the Austrian Government has been 
to cramp the industrial energies and to stifle the natural resources 
of Hungary. No railroad was allowed to be built, scarce a road to 
be made, or a bridge to be constructed. In 1844 the Hungarian 
Diet passed a law providing for the construction of a railroad from 
Pesth to Fiume, on the Adriatic; and — in order that Professor 
Brownson may not be induced to think it was symjoathy for the 'poor 
"serf" which actuated the Austrian Government — the nobles them- 
selves, who at that time were still exempt from taxation, guaranteed 
the expenses, in other words, offered to build it at their own expense, 
so that neither the Austrian Government nor the peasant would be 
wronged. This law was vetoed by Ferdinand V ! 

I have shown that the king had no power directly to levy taxes. 
But the limits of the constitution proved very insufficient barriers 
against Austrian avarice. What could not be done directly yfa?, done 
indirectly. The mineral v/ealth of Hungary is great; it has exten- 
sive forests ; its climate is genial, and favorable to the culture 
of wine. Forges and factories of hardware, cutlery, etc., began to 
rear themselves at the foot of the Carpathians. The joiners, furni- 
ture makers, and other artisans, were busily at work. Wines were 
plenty on the borders of the Danube, the Theiss, and other Hunga- 



26 STALLO'S LECTURE. 

rian rivers. To annihilate all these industrial operations, and to stop 
all the sources of national wealth, the Austrian Government imposed 
the most enormous duties on all articles of exportation : sixty per 
cent, on joiners' work, sixty or a hundred per cent, on cutlery, hard- 
ware, etc., amounting really to an absolute prohibition; and the 
peasants of Gallicia, who almost witnessed the manufacture of supe- 
rior scythes, etc., at Gomar, in Hungary, only a few miles distant 
from the Gallician border, were compelled to import their scythes 
from Styria, an Austrian province, at a distance of more than the 
whole breadth of the Hungarian kingdom. On wine, too, pro- 
hibitory duties — not ad valorem, but specific — were imposed, so that 
only the most costly article (tokay, etc.) could be exported. 

While thus on the one hand all the internal industry of Hungary 
was repressed, heavy import duties on most articles of English, 
Swiss, German, etc., manufacture, threw the Hungarians on the 
resources of the Austrian provinces. The organization of the "pro- 
tection society," (similar to the patriotic association formed at the 
dawfi of our American Revolution), whose members pledged them- 
selves to consume none but home articles, and of which Kossuth 
was the soul, although Batthyanyi stood ostensibly at its head, was 
one of the measures of self-defense resorted to by the Hungarians 
against this system of oppression and tyranny. 

A parallel between the Hungarian and American war of inde- 
pendence would exhibit manj^ curious analogies, which may go far 
to account for those warm sympathies of the generous Americans 
which Professor Brownson undertakes to abate. I will refer to but 
one item as additional proof of Austrian atrocity, in which this 
analogy borders upon identity. 

The last subject of complaint against the British King mentioned I i 
m the Declaration of Independence, is this: i ; 

"He [the King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrec- i i 
tions amonofst us, and has endeavored to brino- on the inhabitants of i ! 
our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, Avhose known rule of j j 
warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and \ I 
conditions." ■ j | 

Apply this to Ferdinand of Austria, and insert the word " Cro- i i 
atian" for "Indian," and this passage becomes an authentic part of j i 
the late history in Hungary. j j 

I need not recite the first events of the late Hungarian war. It is i j 
well known that hostilities were commenced by the Serbs, and by the "] i 



STALLO'S LECTURE. 27 

Croatians under Jellacliicli, who, with his hordes, crossed the Drave, 
wliile the Hungarians still regarded Ferdinand V as their friend, and 
were busy in bringing the new laws just signed by Ferdinand V into 
operation. On the 10th June, 1848, an imperial manifesto, over 
the signature of Ferdinand V, was issued, in which Ferdinand V 
denounced Jellachich as a traitor, stripped him of his dignities and 
offices, and sent the Austrian marshal, Hrabrowsky, to assume the 
military command in Croatia. About the 19th of June, Jellachich 
met the emperor at Juspruck ; and although the particulars of that 
interview are, of course, unknown, certain it is, that Jellachich 
remained under the ban of treason until the 4th day of September, 
1848, when he was openly recognized as an imperial commander, 
and publicly restored to his dignities. Then it appeared that the 
Austrian Government had secretly instigated him to these very acts 
for which Ferdinand V publicly branded him as a traitor ! 

But I forbear. It has become sufficiently apparent, I hope, that 
Professor Brownson's statements with regard to the justice of the 
Hungarian cause, and the relation of the Magyars to the other races, 
are, to say the least of them, very extraordinary; and that if ever 
there was a just cause under heaven, it was the cause of the 
Hungarians. 

A word yet about the language of the Magyars. It has been 
said that the Magyars oppressed the Sclavonians in attempting to 
force upon them their language, which they made the official lan- 
guage of the Diet. It is true, the Magyar language Avas made the 
lanouaq-e of the Diet, for the same reason that Eno-lish is the lansfuao-e 
used in the councils of our nation, notwithstanding the five millions 
of Germans, the hosts of Frenchmen, Spaniards, etc., in this country : 
because the Magyar language is spoken by more than twice as many 
persons as speak any other dialect in Hungary. But the Croatians 
did not contend for the use of their own language, but that of the 
Latin ; and it is easily seen that this would have made the new 
electoral law, to a certain extent, a nullity. It would have been a 
more effectual barrier to the real publicity of the proceedings among 
the newly-emancipated peasantry, than even the Austrian censorship. 
It is not at all difficult to understand why the Austrian Government 
favored the claim of the Croatians. 

The last proposition of Professor Brownson is : 

"Russia had the right to intervene, in order to suppress rebellion in the 
Austrian Empire, because Russia was solicited to this by the Austrian 



28 



STALLO S LECTURE. 



Sovereign ; a principle wliicli would apply to the Federal Government of the 
United States, -which would have the right to call in a friendly foreign power to 
repress the rebellion of a single state, and also on the ground of self-preserva- 
tion, inasmuch as her own institutions were endangered by the revolutionary 
and republican struggles of Hungary." 

As to the first part of this proposition, I will simply leave Pro- 
fessor Brownson to the ample refutation contained in his own illus- 
tration drawn from our country ; not admitting, however, the parallel 
between the relation of any of our individual states to the Federal 
Government, and that of Hungary to Austria. The second part of 
the proposition, relating to the right of self-preservation, I will accept 
for the sake of argument, on the ground of the merit which it derives 
from its own absurdity ; for if Russia has the right to march into 
Hungary and repress republican movements because they endanger 
her own despotic existence, owing to the contiguity of Hungary to 
the Prussian provinces, then, unqiiestionably, we Americans have a 
right to march into Russia and to abolish its Czarocracy, because our 
own institutions are thereby imminently jeoparded, both on account 
of territorial contiguity and on account of the rapid and extensive 
intercourse between Russia and the United States in this age of 
steamships and telegraphs. 

I have, ladies and gentlemen, in the preceding investigation, almost 
wholly divested myself of the character of your cotemporary and 
countryman. I have ceased to be a citizen of this free republic of 
the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, I 
have been ready to forget for a moment that such men as Rousseau 
and Fichte, Jefferson and Franklin, lived before me, and that I stand 
with you, in this green land of liberty, in the broad light of their 
ideas. I have, for the sake of Professor Brownson, donned the garb 
of a medieval granny with spectacles and wig. I have held up to 
you the canons of historical right, and, by the dim light which they 
afford, tried the young and living case of Hungary. We have seen 
that Hungary need not fear even this test; that, perhaps, in all his- 
tory there is not a case where historical riff/it is so invariably on the 
side of the people and liberty, and historical wron^ on the side of 
the kniffs and desjyotismf But were it otherwise, it would not affect 
my sympathies or change my views. The Hungarians would still be 
right, for the reason that men are free born, and nations have the right 
to govern themselves. 



In^OTE. 



The form and the limits of the preceding lecture have rendered a cita- 
tion, in loco, of the various authorities from "which the facts are derived, and 
copious extracts from these authorities, inconvenient, if not wholly imprac- 
ticable. None of my statements of fact, however, so far as they bear upon 
questions at issue between Professor Brownson and myself, have been made 
upon mere partisan authority. Those who desire to verify those statements 
are referred to the following authorities: 

" Hungary and Transylvania. By John Paget, Esq. Republication by Lea & 
Blanchard, Philadelphia. 1850." 

"Dr. H. Bcrghaus. Geographic u. Staatenkunde. Breslau Grass, Earth & 
Co., 1843." 

" Rotteck and Wdckcr. Staats Lexicon, 12 vols. Altona: J. F. Hammerich. 
1840." 

" Adolph StrecJkfuss. Die Staats Umwaelzungen der Jahre 1847 and 1848. 
Berlin: Albert Sacco. 1849." 

" Aufzeichnungen eines Honved. Leipzig: Grunow & Co. 1850." 
" Therese Pulszhj. Aus dera Tagebuche einer ungarischen Dame, etc. Leip- 
zig: Grunow & Co. 1850." 

"Francis Pulszky. Die Sprachfrage in Ungarn. Leipzig: Grunow <fe Co. 
1850." 

" De Gerando. De 1' Esprit Public en Hongrie. 1848." 

" Schuette. Ungarn und der Ungarische Unabhaengigkeitskrieg, 2 vols. 
1850." 

" Dr. Anton Fuester. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ungarischen Revolution. 
Frankfurt. 1850." 

" C. F. Henningsen. Past and Future of Hungary. 1852." 
Several carefully collated extracts, from various authorities, will be found in 
two very able articles by Mrs. Putnam, in " The Christian Examiner," iTos. 
XLII and XLIV, of the fourth series. See, also, the excellent work, "Hun- 
gary and Kossuth," by Rev. B. F. Tefft, D. D. 

The following extracts, bearing upon the much-discussed question of lan- 
guage and race in Hungary, may not be uninteresting. The first is from De 
Gerando, (De I'Esprit Public en Hongrie, pp. 333, 334), who stands perfectly 
aloof from all party connection: 

"In restoring priority to their language, the Hungarians were not merely 
fortifying the independence of Hungary. It was not merely a question of 
recovering a lost position, but also of effecting a democratic revolution. The 
Latin language might, indeed, suffice for the country as long as the nobility 
alone were counted in the state; but it must necessarily give place to a popular 
idiom, when political rights were no longer to be confined to a small number." 
Another extract, from the speech of the minister Szemere, (now Kossuth's 
opponent), delivered on the 2Ist of July, 1849, in the Diet at Szegedin, is 
quoted by Mrs. Putnam, from an anti-national Hungarian book, published at 

29 



30 NOTE. 

Pesth, under the very eyes of Hayiiau, in 1850, by Szilagyi — "A' Magyar 
Forradalom Ferfiai " — and is in itself a refutation of Professor Brownson's 
assertions. It is the following: 

" The next wish of the nation is the pacification of the races Avho have been 
incited to insurrection. Terrible is the misery of the Wallachs and Servians, 
who have exiled themselves from their own homes, but yet more terrible are 
the cruelties which they have exercised upon the Magyars and Germans. The 
blindness of these people, which permits them to be excited to rebellion by the 
intrigues of the dynasty which oppresses them, is inconceivable. But yet 
more inconceivable is the unprincipled heartlessness of their leaders, who, in 
various ways, if not indeed directly, are wasting the strength of the people 
in the service of that very dynasty with whom all the sufferings of the people 
originate. What have not the people, the Wallach, the Servian, and the Mag- 
yar people, suffered in this beautiful country? Every thing, every thing; all 
the sufferings of servitude. When and how long did they suffer? Since the 
memory of man, until 1848. Who governed, who ruled, in Hungary until 
1848? The Vienna cabinet, the Austrian ministry. It was this government 
which held the agricultural population under the yoke, so that neither their 
thoughts nor their property were their own. It was this government which 
made the Wallachs the servants of their lords. It was this government whicli 
prohibited the meeting of the synod of the old Greek Church. It was this 
government which deprived the Servian people of their ancient rights in 
regard to their liberty in ecclesiastical matters. This government subjected 
the Wallachs to the Servian clergy. It was this government which bound the 
iidiabitants of the military frontier to the soil. Finally, it was this Austrian 
government which kept these races in a state of constant irritation against 
each other, so that those who lived on the same soil, under the same sky, drew 
into their souls, with God's air, only mutual hatred. The executive power 
returned into the hands of the nation only in 1848. And how did the Hunga- 
rians use this power? Tliey abolished the tithes and robot. They proclaimed 
equality of rights and obligations, without distinction of race or religion. 
They convoked the synod of the Greek Church, and appointed for the man- 
agement of its affairs a separate section in the appropriate department of the 
ministry. They liberated the inhabitants of the frontier from their servitude, 
and thus the great masses of Wallachs and Servians living there not only 
obtained the right to elect representatives to the diet — a right before attached, 
not to race, but to nobility — but were also freed from their military bondage; 
so that they were placed on an equal footing with the other inhabitants of the 
country, while their material prosperity was, at the same time, secured by 
important concessions. 

"It was thus that the Hungarian government entered upon the exercise of 
its power. The foundation of fraternity, of equality and freedom, without 
distinction of language or religion, was laid; nothing remained but to adapt 
these three sacred principles in detail. It was then that the intrigues of the 
soulless dynasty — which had concealed from the people the gift of freedom 
that had been bestowed upon them — caused this misguided people to break 
out into insurrection, at the very moment when they ought to have been cele- 
brating the festival of their liberation. 



NOTE. 31 

" Gentlemen, you know all tliis well. I do not, therefore, enter into details. 
But it was needful for me to say thus much, for the misguided people are igno- 
rant of all this — that people who v,-ere good, quiet, and patient in their servi- 
tude, and now, infatuated, are shedding their blood in the contest against free- 
dom. Europe does not know this. Europe sees in the rebellion of the Wal- 
lachs and Servians a proof, not that the Hungarian government has bestowed 
freedom on all the inhabitants of the country without distinction, but a proof 
that it designs to keep them in servitude. And this is one of the principal 
reasons why the government regards it as its chief aim to pacify the people at 
any price. So that it can be done consistently with justice. I remember with 
grief the many thousand Magyars and Germans who have fallen victims to the 
fury of these people. But I feel pity for the murderers of those victims also; 
for a deceived, infatuated people, even in their sin, merit not condemnation 
only, but compassion. Had the Hungarian government, in the beginning, 
answered cruelty with cruelty, there would perhaps have been peace, if oidy 
the peace of the grave. But this was not done. Every means of moral influ- 
ence was put in use, to bind once more the bonds of brotherhood. Explan- 
ations, proclamations, were distributed by hundreds of thousands. We used 
every honorable means that the press afforded. We supported the representa- 
tives in their efforts for pacification, and we aided those who have become vic- 
tims of the persecutions of their own kindred, in consequence of these efforts. 
We knew that the leaders of the Moldavian movement exercised great influ- 
ence over the Wallachs, and we tried to neutralize this influence. We knew 
also that the Servian rebellion was nourished from Servia; and we did not 
delay to communicate to the Servian prince and his government our views in 
regard to the rights of the different races in Hungary. These views were 
received with full approbation. We did not delay a moment in our work of 
pacification, or in presenting our principles in detail. And what was the 
result? This: when we were victorious, our views were satisfactory; but 
when the star of our fortune began to be clouded, we were answered with 
evasion and postponement. In a word, the most upright, the most honorable 
conduct upon our part, met only with deceit and treachery. Our object in 
this has been no other than, on the one hand, to hasten the security of the 
independence of the country, and of civil liberty; on the other, to restore the 
reign of mild humanity, so that the chief glory of our revolution, a mild and 
peaceful development, might be kept unpolluted by the bloody footprints of 
terrorism. Our conditions were so framed that we could not grant more with- 
out sacrificing the unity of the state, and less we did not think sufficient. 
They Avere so framed that, certainly, no country ever gave such rights to the 
smaller nationalities dwelling within its boundaries. We expressed every 
thing in clear language, with precision, abstaining entirely from those false 
promises with which Austria is accustomed to deceive the peojDle — Austria, 
which promised the Servians a Woiwodina, but which gave them only the 
name; which promised freedom to the inhabitants of the frontier, who, how 
ever, are still serfs, glebe bound, and forced to send their ten or twenty thou 
sand men to serve in foreign wars — Austria, which proclaimed equality of 
rights for all nationalities; yet the Servians, Wallachs, Gallicians, and Croats 
are obliged to use the German language as soon as they pass their own thresh- 



32 NOTE. 

olds — which promised to the Bukowina, that, though it be only a small terri- 
tory, the vernacular language should be introduced into the schools, and then 
explained this promise to mean, that all instruction should be given in the 
German language, but that it should be permitted, at the same time, to teach 
the rules of the vernacular tongue. 

•' Tliese efforts for the pacification of the insurgent populations, we judged 
to be suitable and just. Hitherto they have remained without effect; but we 
hope that they may yet become effectual. We are responsible to you in this 
world, and, beyond this world, to God; and we have wished so to conduct this 
government, that the All-powerful, who holds the fate of nations in his hand, 
may say of the Hungarians, This nation deserves to be free, for it knew how 
to be just to other nations, to whom it has given land from its own land, rights 
bought with its own blood, and to whom, even after they had carried slaugh- 
ter and devastation through the land, it was still generous enough to extend 
the olive-branch of peace with brotherly hand."* 

The perfidy of the Austrian government in openly deposing and denouncing 
Jellachich, and secretly instigating, supporting and encouraging him, is thus 
exposed by Schuette, (Ungarn und der Unabhaengigkeitskrieg): 

" On the same day that Jellachich was commanded, by a letter from the 
King, to s'ubmit himself to the command of the Hungarian ministry and Gen- 
eral Hrabowszky, Latour, the Austrian minister, sent him 50,000 guilders for 
the payment of his troops, besides arms and ammunition. These supplies were 
continued during the whole month of August, and the materials of war were ■ 
chiefly taken from the arsenals in Vienna and Wiener-Neustadt, and the equip- 
ment stores in Stockerau. As early as the 13th of August, on the day on 
Avhich the Emperor returned to Vienna from Innspruck, Latour believed the 
preparations of Jellachich so far advanced, that he sent him the necessary 
means for passing the Drave, two complete pontoon bridges, which were car- 
ried through Vienna on more than a hundred wagons to the Glogguitz rail- 
road." 

*A' Magyar Forradalom Ferfiai, Szilagyi Sandortol. Pesten, 1850. 








LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




fAi 















j^ ' ' (. 




Ml 



a 



